Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches

May 12

The 21st is done, ready to focus on this one? It needs a title, and I guess y'all are still putting it together? The first para leaves me (as a person unfamiliar with FL) lost ... I need basic definitions first, a link to the criteria (didn't they always include comprehensiveness), I don't know what this first line is (WP:Featured lists week), and I'm not following why a test case was created (wouldn't that be a WP:POINT nomination? ... I'm not getting it ... ) Ready to help, first it needs more groundwork laid for those who don't know FLC. Also, hard to tell, but it seems like "Existing Featured lists" is history and stat info, so should it come first, before discussing this current issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm wondering if you plan to touch on any of the issue of how to tell if something should go to FAC or FLC (article or list), or does that need a separate dispatch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article right now is basically a bunch of prosified notes Woody and I have made. We'll work on cleaning it up this week (I have two exams, but I'm done Thursday, so I'll have plenty of time after that). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll tune in after Thursday ... have fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: with elections under way, should we put this off for two weeks? We could give this slot to DYK; they have something almost ready. Or would you rather have a separate entry on elections? Up to you all ... but if you'd rather defer, I have to get someone else to fill in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. THe long lists discussion seems to be falling apart, so perhaps we should wait a few weeks, then devote a column entirely to the director stuff. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to hear from others, and then will ask DYK to fill in if others concur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no strong feelings on the matter. The director stuff will probably be a more interesting read than a dispute over the completeness of sporting lists. Colin°^Talk 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if DYK can fill in that would be great, FL seems to be undergoing a bit of upheaval at the moment! Woody (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys ! Time to get crackin' :-) If you watched Wikipedia:FCDW/May 5, 2008 and Wikipedia:FCDW/April 28, 2008 evolve, you know that no matter what text you dump on to this page, Tony1 and Jbmurray are going to make it sparkle, so just start adding text! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice work. I have a few qualms, though:

I suggest a greater angle towards the dynamic and the positive. I'm glad "Dilemma" has gone. "Fluctuations" implies back and forth, to me. I've tried a more catchy title to engage readers' attention—otherwise, many will not proceed.
Structure: The article needs to start with a brief overview of what the hell FLs and FLC are, then move to the more important news of fundamental change in the process (the directors in the first subsection, then the impending revamp of the criteria (and the instructions), then to particular issues or types of list.
The lead: In the lead, I suggest including the bit at the start of "Longer lists" that a third of all FLs are sports-related (a quarter are blah, 10% are blah—big categories, to give an overview). The relationship with FAs is important too. Let's remember that some FACs are booted off because they're too listy, and perhaps the converse occurs. Other big issues that most WPians won't even have thought of is the finite vs dynamic; are there more? It's interesting.
Detail: I think it makes it look a bit in-house and clubby to mention everyone's name in the director section—who nominated, who withdrew, who failed. Just the basic facts are enough, aren't they (it was better in the previous version), and the names of the directors and FLR closers?
Longer lists and comprehensiveness: I still find it hard to work out the angle of the "Longer lists and comprehensiveness" section. The readers need to know at the beginning whether this is talking about a fault, a strength, an ongoing issue. It plunges straight into one particular type of list (sports-related) for no apparent reason (at least, the title needs to be the point of the departure in the first para: longer lists and comprehensiveness). ... Are any other issues going to be covered? Tony (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still more of a rough draft than anything, but thanks for taking a look. I have added an introduction and I'll take a look at cleaning up the long lists part tomorrow (I think it could easily be trimmed a bit). As for the directors, I have removed mention of every nominee, but I think all four candidates should be mentioned. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The DYK Dispatch gives a great example of what we might aim for here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of ideas:

It might not hurt to have a section about the proposal for FLs on the main page. there is an experiment right now, but most FLC regulars disagree with it (including myself and Woody). However, we could ask TonyTheTiger to write it (although he may make it more promotional than informative)
Would it be possible for someone to make us a graph similar to this one?
Another section we could include is a brief overview of the list/article debate. I think Colin is the one best suited for that because he has been more involved in the discussions than me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much chance of lists going on the mainpage anytime soon, and before spending time on such text, I'd ask Raul. I don't think TonyTheTiger's proposals enjoy broad support, and it might be better to focus on all the tasks at hand. That graphs was made by Carcharoth; you could ask him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get a chance to look at this but it sounds like we are trying to mention every FL-related issue from the last six months. When would Dispatches feature FLs again? In a few months, six months, a year? Colin°^Talk 09:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

Graph: Good idea, but unlike that FA graph, which fails, I think, because it's too fine-grained, how about merging some of the categories into larger ones. A pie graph of, say, eight or so super-categories might give people a more digestible view of the topic spread. Tony (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: move and resize. I could just read the chart in its original size, but not now it has been shrunk. Combining some topics might help compromise between legibility and size. The text mentions those topics with no FLs so perhaps that doesn't need repeated in the chart. Also, the chart fits better with the lead section than the "Longer lists and comprehensiveness" section. Could it be moved to the RHS of the lead? Colin°^Talk 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't working there before as it was before the lead, and the problem with putting an image in the lead on the Dispatch is that the banner down the side fights with it and restricts the size you can use. How about combining some topics first to see how it looks? The categories are too small to be useful, and that does affect size and legibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the ones with no FLs, combined some of the smaller ones (physics and chemistry, Law and history, computing an mathematics) and made the text a little bigger. Is it better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you'll like this, but how about just "Other" for combining all of the 9 and less? Will help readability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, why not just make it the top 10 + others, then we could make it a pie graph? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (list the rest in the caption), but prefer bar chart to pie chart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it in both formats, then we can decide which we like better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version is up. Is it better? I decided not to bother with a pie chart. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good; the bars convey the information nicely, so I don't think a pie chart is needed. Gary King (talk)

Inline queries

I left some inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that and I think I've fixed it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]